As there are errors in the Bible so are there errors in life itself! It shows the Bible to be human then!...God Forbid that life could be completely transparent and Perfect!!! (Which we ALL know is utterly not true at all). Need I say anymore..?.
To put it another way.......
"Let he who is Perfect cast the first Criticism"!.
I appreciate you putting these videos out, I am saddened that you have left the ministry over trivial disputes over scripture, nonetheless, you videos makes me go over the "hard questions", and hopefully, by the grace of Elohim, some of my answers help show a different viewpoint on the matters and shed a different light on the process.
(plural only) descent, that is, family; (figuratively) history
Chapter 1 - Chronological
Chapter 2 - The History
You are looking for chronological order in the history, like me saying, I walked into the room, then my dad. Well chronologically that is way off seeing dad was born well before me.
I gave specific examples of chronological markers in the text. The example about you and your dad walking into a room wasn't one of them. That's a straw man. Care to address the specific examples I gave?
You put up videos of supposed mistakes in the bible. I went through them, and none of them were a conflict.
Here in Genesis, because you see man and woman being created at the same time, and you see chapter 2 as chronological, then you see conflict. 2:4 says generations, so that is the way I see it. You ask me to answer questions under your view, when I do not agree with your view.
dude u are a dumass u need to cut the shyt, people that belive in the bible dont hate on wat ever u dumb ass atheist belive in. u people need to get a life and stop poitning out mistakes in the bible it was writtin in lik 1500 bc so its obvi gona have some mistakes, so stop poitning em out
dumbshit the bible is god's will. did you know Hitler was a christian? what about the crussades? Darfur? and so many other wars caused by religion brainwash, the bible should be perfect because if the bible have mistakes doesnt that mean that christianity is all wrong? ignorant fool go and read the bible you'll how merciful your god is. ESL.
Great video! This is the first video of yours I've watched but I was just wondering, did you cover a video about the two different genealogies of Jesus in 2 gospels (Matthew & Luke)?
I don't have a lot of respect for people who suggest that you should just believe in something because of a desired outcome no matter how noble or desirable that outcome is. I prefer to believe in something because it is true and well supported by the facts. I would rather know an ugly truth than believe a pretty lie.
"I prefer to believe in something because it is true and well supported by the facts".
Yes of course, the truth is Important, that goes without saying. I would however like to believe in a Man who's sole purpose is to unite mankind in Peace and spiritual harmony. For me anyway the Bible and it's teachings are a guide book and are by no means perfect. You must take from it what you interpret to be real and of sound judgment and logical reasoning in your own life and develop it as your own.
"You must take from it what you interpret to be real and of sound judgment and logical reasoning in your own life and develop it as your own." but Sadly pplz dont do that, they believe in the interpretation of religious manics leaders.
I'me talking about having your own common sense and NOT subjecting oneself to ridgedly adhere to a stringent religion that does not allow for a flexible approach to each particular scenario that may come along. As it was originally put..."God created man in his own Image" therefore we are all different Individuals and will have varying points of view and opinions on issues involving right and wrong. Yes or No?
It's pretty simple really. One text says that there were plants and then man, the other says there were seeds, then man, then plants. A very basic elementary level of logic can see the discrepency here. This boanerges7 guy is a typical example of someone so blinded by their faith that they can't see the obvious truth as it slaps them across the face.
Discern, in the intransitive verb sense is what I am referring to. How you come to understand it is from the roots by which the tree was produced, metaphorically speaking. It's a Hebrew book of metaphorical, allusionary, poetic, didactic, apocalyptic literature which needs to be comprehended in its intended context. Not in the literalist fashion you choose to utilize.
You have totally missed the point. I was debunking a literal interpretation of Genesis, not espousing it. Your answer would apply to ANY ancient text, so you failed to answer why you think understanding the Bible differs from any other text.
Your opening statement clearly indicates your intention in this video. Whether you realize it or not, you are guilty of a literal and eisegetical understanding of scripture. The chronological markers you espouse do NOT create contradictions you claim in chapter 2, period. You can rest in your distortion of scripture if you like, but its obvious your errant description of it has been exposed. Your admittance of your mind being "boggled" is evident to any apologist watching this video.
Explain how the chronological markers I mentioned are not really chronological markers then. Make your case. Just asserting over and over that there is no contradiction is not debunking. Try to string together a coherent argument relevant to the claims in the video. Your vocabulary isn't 5th grade level. Your argument shouldn't be either.
I never said the markers you espouse can't be used as chronological markers. That's not my argument. My argument,is that Genesis 1 details the creation account, and carries over to genesis 2:4; that's where your markers can accurately be utilized. Not beyond 2:4. The following verses emphasize the crown of God's creation, man. The author extrapolates on man and his environment and is not a comparative text. You state in the video "comparing the 2 chapters" which is an erroneous perspective.
You have totally missed the point. The markers I am talking about come from chapter 2 after verse 4. They clearly give an order for creation which is different than the day by day chronology of chapter 1. If you want to refute that you must explain why I am wrong about the chronology in chapter 2. You haven't done that.
Again, Chapter 1 evidences an obvious chronology of events. Chapter 2 does not contain a chronology, but is instead an extrapolation of the crown God's creation, that is man and the environment He created him in. The insinuative, and pointless attempts at insulting me have no bearing on my argument. Your ignorance of me as a person makes your ad hominem attacks flaccid. They don't bother me, but they say more about you than you obviously realize. They reflect your insecurities about yourself.
Plants came before man "there was not a man to till the ground" Adam came before animals "It is not good that man should be alone" then animals "but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" then woman. It doesn't say "on day one god did this and on day 2 god did that", but there is a clear chronology in the text. That chronology contradicts the chronology of chapter one.
Wayne, slow down and examine what I have said. You can't seem to comprehend what I am saying. Maybe it's because you are to enthralled with attemping to insult my intelligence, which is something I find amusing. You made a video, be a man and debate the issues that it presents, and leave the name calling, and the pointless insults to the middle schoolers.
chronology from chapter 2: plants before man (2:5) then man (2:7)and he was still alone (2:18) then the animals "I will make an help meet for him" (2:19) then after animals are made there was still "not found an help meet for him" (2:20) then the woman(2:22)
I made a video describing the chronology in chapter 2. You are welcome to present an argument explaining WHY it is not a chronology. But you keep simply repeating "there is no chronology in chapter 2" over and over. That is not debate. If you can't articulate why the markers I descibed don't constitute a chronology then you have NO argument. None. Period. Put up or shut up.
The problem here is that you assert something to be what it has been repeatedly stated, and proven it is not. You WANT it to be a chronology, so in your mind, and your mind alone thats what it is. I can't change that for you. If you insist on eisegetically pontifficating this fasle comparison, be my guest. I see even more clearly the proverbial assertion that warns against "casting pearls before swine, to be trampled underfoot" Have a good one dude!
Was it in Bible college that they taught you that man/woman were created on the 7th day? Can you extrapolate on what you mean when you say "fundamentalist?" Are you referring to someone who reads scriptural text literally? Regarding your statement regarding some "special" understanding, if your insinuating I have some cosmic insight to the truths of scripture, ummmm no. I never said that, and its a false assertion, as well as a strawman argument.
1)Already covered that in these comments. I intended to say 7th in the order of creation of the 7 things mentioned. I unintentionally mispoke and I already addressed that. 2)Look up christian fundamentalist. It's a pretty clear label. 3)Explain what you mean by "discern" then. Text is text and words are words. How do you think understanding the Bible is different from understanding any other text?
As an atheist, you more than likely adhere to a Darwinistic perception of life as we know it. You have several problems in your argument which should be addressed if you really expect to be taken seriously. First, understand that the Bible is not a science book. That's your 1st problem. Secondly, you have to study scripture, and learn how to discern it in order to make valid arguments. To exemplify your eisegetical comprehension, you assert man/woman were created on the 7th day...WRONG!
Secondly, you claim multiple authors of Genesis by some random myopic assertion, and the "evidence" you provide is quite dubious. If you truly want to understand scripture, I would be glad to help,but I don't think you want to understand it,except to attempt to refute it. Please stick to science,and stay away from trying to discern scripture.
Actually, biblical scholars have been aware of those seperate strands for centuries. Get a book on the subject and read it. For all your bravado, I notice you haven't even attempted to refute any points made in the video. Do you have any substantive input at all?
Here's some "substantive input" refuting your video's false assertions, considering you are ignoring the questions I posed to you. (1) Genesis 1 is an account of the 6 days of creation (Not 7) (2) Genesis 2 empahsizes in DETAIL the one aspect of creation that God had prized most highly, that is the creation of man. If you notice in the account in Genesis 1, after He created each day, it is stated that "and, it was good." After creating man, in His own image and likeness....(cont.)
It is distinguished as being "VERY good" (3) That being said, it's obvious that Genesis 2 is an extrapolative commentary that doesn't present a reiterated account of creation, instead it presupposes the completion of God's work of God's creation set forth in Genesis 1. Failure to recognize the obvious complimentary nature of the subject-distinction between the 2 accounts reveals your obscurantist perspective of the text.
More "substantive input" for you. Your Yahwist-Elohist assertion is nothing new to theist, or non theist. This thought process was introduced by Jean Astruc in 1753. Exodus 6:3 sheds light upon the so called discrepancy you are verbally regurgitating. What you fail to comprehend is that the key statement "to know the name of Yahweh" translated to Hebraic culture, or the phrase "to know" is regarding intimate, or experiential knowledge of God. That expression occurs 26 times in the OT.(cont.)
And your willfull ignorance and denial of the facts is nothing new either. You are rehashing arguments that were weak hundreds of years ago and remain weak today. You are a sheep, plain and simple, deluded to the point that you will buy any explanation which allows you to cling to your delusion.
Ahhh..my favorite part of debunking atheistic perceptions, the ever popular ad hominem attack, and futile attempt to avoid the weakness of your argument. It's so old....When all else fails, create a smokescreen assertion where obviously the holes in your argument are spackled with vain attempts to insult, thus the atheist feels he has convinced someone other than himself of superior intellect. Whatever makes you feel like a man, my friend. LOL...
First off, you haven't done any debunking, yet another word you evidently don't know the meaning of. You can call it an ad hominen attack if you like. I call it as I see it and you have provided sufficient evidence to make that call already. Christians want to be coddled and don't want to be thought of or spoken of as idiots while simultaneously hawking idiotic ideas as truth. Sorry, I won't coddle you.
Debunk: to expose the sham or falseness of; e.g. your argument. regardless of your denial of that fact. I don't expect you to admit to anything contrary to your myopically contrived babble. Regarding "coddling"; that statement further emphasizes your own fasle sense of intelligence in this matter, and personal lack of self esteem. Instead of dealing with MY argument, you resort to juvenile tactics. Denying the facts I have presented doesn't make them go away,nor does it make them inaccurate.
You didn't debunk anything. You said chapter 2 has a different emphasis, but that in NO WAY removes the chronological markers from the text which clearly contradict the chronology in chapter 1. If you want to debunk what I said you HAVE to address that. Misdirection and unsupported assertions don not constitute debunking. Only a christian apologist would think it does.
Genesis chapter one utilizes the name Elohim consistently througout the chapter, and Yahweh becomes prominent in chapter 2. What you seem to overlook is the fact that in Genesis the eleven times that the name Yahweh is used, it is in conjuntion with the name Elohim, and not in a distinct fashion as you would like your listeners to believe, thus creating a fallacious contradiction. Your assertion to having extensive knowledge of the Bible is not evident in your discourse.
You need to look up the words "complimentary" and "contradictory" because you obviously have them confused. You are ignoring the chronological markers in the text of chapter 2 and ignoring the obvious language differences resulting from different authorship.
A book doesn't have to be a science book to be taken literally as fundamentalists do, and that is who my videos are primarily aimed at because that is my background. I have studied the Bible extensively as was required at Bible college. If your point about discernment is to imply some "special" understanding imparted to believers then you can't be taken seriously.
Christians believe in a book that has talking animals, Wizards/Sorcerers, Witches, Demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, hundreds of dead people reanimating, and all sorts of magical, silly, absurd and primitive stories - and it's the ones who DON'T believe this that are insane or deluded.....Zeus help us.
u probably got kicked out because ur not smart enough to read it. plus it was in a different language so it sound contrdictorary* because there is no word to describe that thing so they had to repeat. ur ignorant.
It does matter that it is true, but explain to me how who wrote it means anything as long as God wrote it through them. And disprove me on the fact that it is two differnt accounts of two different crerations
it doesn't matter who wrote it and how many people wrote it the fact is it's the story of two different creations. it says elohim planted a garden in Eden, now begins the start of the second creation.
You're wrong. That's ALL that matters is who wrote it and whether it is true. It was obviously written by various human authors who got things wrong, not by a perfect god writing an inerrant book.
Helqihq, the truth is the serpent did lie, i don't kno what kind of Bible you have or if you actually read the text.Genesis 3:4 "then the serpent said to the woman, 'you will not surely die...." that is a lie. because of course we all die.
No, according to your religion, no one dies, they just go to another realm. So, in your religion the serpent really told the truth. I would say the serpent didnt lie and didnt tell the truth either way because its just a myth but of course the would make the entire damn story a lie wouldnt it?
i'm not sayin satan did lie i said he could have, but God avoided that situation by creating everything in front of Adam. And i went to no great length and stretch to come up with the theory of two seperate creations, i simply read it. Try it!!
No, you read it simply. Try this. Read Genesis start to finish and take note of where it uses "God" and where it uses "the Lord God". They are different because one is a translation of Elohim and the other Yahweh. Most of the contradictions in Genesis are a result of two authors stories being blended together. Your parents didn't tell you that, did they? There's more they didn't tell you.
Chapter 2 of Genesis is an account of Eden, God wanted Adam to see that He created everything. Other wise Satan could come to Adam and say, "look at all i created". So He places Adam at a spot a creates Eden, and everything in Eden, around Adam. So it's not two different accounts or one creation but two different accounts of two different creations. hope this helps.... God Bless
Can somebody find me the place in Genesis where the snake actually lies? Seriously, look it up, he's telling the truth, God is the one who lied! Look it up, the Emperor has no clothes, GOD'S THE ONE WHO'S LYING! The implication is only that the snake had no right to tell the truth, but it's the truth! "Behold, man has become as one of us, to know good from evil" and so forth!
interesting video. I looked up in the old testament and i saw that you were right. That did not surprise me because even though i am a christian i always thought that the old testament is nothing more than a book of hebrew legends (most of which are not even original). However just one correction: man was not created on day 7 as you say but at the end of day 6
Contradictions aside, a YEC must ask himself why would God make a very large (mostly lethal) universe, with the light from distant stars already millions of lightyears ahead of their source. An OEC must ask, why did God wait 13.7 billion years before creating Mankind on a 4.5 billion year old Earth?
Really? Read what you just posted again. "plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it" Again, at what stage do plants BEAR FRUIT and have seeds in them? Only fully grown plants do. Genesis 1 says they were bearing fruit and seeds. I'm not reading that in, it was plainly written in.
Or God could have created all the plants of the world...and where he created Adam he put the plants that would benefit adam most there and prior to that in that area there was no vegitation although vegitation existed.
Gen 1:11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
In don't see "full grown" anywhere nor any hint as to how the plants were produced.
What plant produces seeds while it is still a seed itself? Plants that bear seeds are mature plants. But you keep grasping for straws. Maybe you'll convince yourself.
Grasping at straws is what you are doing. Nothing at all in Genesis 1 says the plants were necessarily made full grown. Every plant that produces seeds was one a seed. Genesis 1 just doesn't say what you are reading into it.
think about what you are saying BattleshipTx...God creates plants...but there are no plants...just seeds. Within the week, God creates man...what did man eat? Genesis 2 has a tree, not a shrub, a seedling, or a twig...but a full tree bearing fruit. It's OBVIOUS the plants were supposed to be created full grown. Go to a church and without prefacing it with this argument...ask someone to read Gen 1 and tell you "Where the plants and animals created fully grown or as seeds and younglings?"
When you read a book like Gone With The Wind, and Chapter 1 says Melody wore her blue dress to the party. Then Chapter 2 says she was wore her blue dress, favorite shoes and a pretty bonnet to the party. Do you immediately think that Chapter 1 and 2 are in conflict as Chapter 1 said she went shoeless and without head covering to the party? Obviously, 2 gives additional information so to understand 1.
Bad analogy. You can wear a blue dress with or without your favorite shoes and with or without a bonnet. But plants cannot bear fruit while they are still seeds, they MUST be grown. Why are you pretending to not see that?
They can bear fruit if they are planted as seeds grow up and bear fruit. You have to read Genesis 1 in connection with Genesis 2, just like you would any other book like Gone With The Wind. Chapter 2 tells you more about Chapter 1.
Look at Gen 1:12 It says the plants were bearing fruit and seeds ON DAY THREE. If you want to claim that the seeds were planted and grew into mature plants in one day, fine. But how do you then square that with Gen 2 which says the plants had NOT grown because there was no rain and no man to till the ground? Man wasn't created till day 6 according to Gen 1.
How do you know that it ment plants on the Planet Earth...there are many firmaments(planets) that could be God telling us that there is life on other planets
Are you retarded? I'm sorry I know name calling doesn't help,but somtimes... Anyway, No that's not a contradiction. If it said she wore her blue dress to the funeral that would be a blatent contradiction just like the Genisis account.
Oh by the way there are two types of plants in some plant cycles...a seedless and a seedbearing...he could have ment that the plants(seeds in the ground) were the seed bearing type
Point to where it says the plants were made "full grown". It simply doesn't say that in Genesis 1, you are reading it into that story. Read the language again, nothing at all about being created full grown:
I was wondering why the 2 different terms were used, thanks, makes sense.
How about evidence for jebus ? Some cat on stickam was saying that Paul or someone made accounts only 10 yrs after the death of JC vs 40yrs that I was made aware of
As there are errors in the Bible so are there errors in life itself! It shows the Bible to be human then!...God Forbid that life could be completely transparent and Perfect!!! (Which we ALL know is utterly not true at all). Need I say anymore..?.
To put it another way.......
"Let he who is Perfect cast the first Criticism"!.
Nuff said.
shangrilar 2 years ago
I appreciate you putting these videos out, I am saddened that you have left the ministry over trivial disputes over scripture, nonetheless, you videos makes me go over the "hard questions", and hopefully, by the grace of Elohim, some of my answers help show a different viewpoint on the matters and shed a different light on the process.
respect.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
KJV God-Elohim, LORD-YHWH, LORD God-YHWH Elohim
2:4 "generations"
תּלדה תּולדה
(plural only) descent, that is, family; (figuratively) history
Chapter 1 - Chronological
Chapter 2 - The History
You are looking for chronological order in the history, like me saying, I walked into the room, then my dad. Well chronologically that is way off seeing dad was born well before me.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Jazzy,
I gave specific examples of chronological markers in the text. The example about you and your dad walking into a room wasn't one of them. That's a straw man. Care to address the specific examples I gave?
tillnow67 2 years ago
"examples of chronological markers"
First, straw man, this is not a debate.
You put up videos of supposed mistakes in the bible. I went through them, and none of them were a conflict.
Here in Genesis, because you see man and woman being created at the same time, and you see chapter 2 as chronological, then you see conflict. 2:4 says generations, so that is the way I see it. You ask me to answer questions under your view, when I do not agree with your view.
So my answer is already given.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
dude u are a dumass u need to cut the shyt, people that belive in the bible dont hate on wat ever u dumb ass atheist belive in. u people need to get a life and stop poitning out mistakes in the bible it was writtin in lik 1500 bc so its obvi gona have some mistakes, so stop poitning em out
truehustle77 3 years ago
dumbshit the bible is god's will. did you know Hitler was a christian? what about the crussades? Darfur? and so many other wars caused by religion brainwash, the bible should be perfect because if the bible have mistakes doesnt that mean that christianity is all wrong? ignorant fool go and read the bible you'll how merciful your god is. ESL.
khryzalids 2 years ago
Great video! This is the first video of yours I've watched but I was just wondering, did you cover a video about the two different genealogies of Jesus in 2 gospels (Matthew & Luke)?
marcluc1988 3 years ago
Just believe in something that supports peace in your fellow man numb nutts!
shangrilar 3 years ago
I don't have a lot of respect for people who suggest that you should just believe in something because of a desired outcome no matter how noble or desirable that outcome is. I prefer to believe in something because it is true and well supported by the facts. I would rather know an ugly truth than believe a pretty lie.
tillnow67 3 years ago
"I prefer to believe in something because it is true and well supported by the facts".
Yes of course, the truth is Important, that goes without saying. I would however like to believe in a Man who's sole purpose is to unite mankind in Peace and spiritual harmony. For me anyway the Bible and it's teachings are a guide book and are by no means perfect. You must take from it what you interpret to be real and of sound judgment and logical reasoning in your own life and develop it as your own.
shangrilar 3 years ago
"You must take from it what you interpret to be real and of sound judgment and logical reasoning in your own life and develop it as your own." but Sadly pplz dont do that, they believe in the interpretation of religious manics leaders.
khryzalids 2 years ago
I'me talking about having your own common sense and NOT subjecting oneself to ridgedly adhere to a stringent religion that does not allow for a flexible approach to each particular scenario that may come along. As it was originally put..."God created man in his own Image" therefore we are all different Individuals and will have varying points of view and opinions on issues involving right and wrong. Yes or No?
shangrilar 2 years ago
It's pretty simple really. One text says that there were plants and then man, the other says there were seeds, then man, then plants. A very basic elementary level of logic can see the discrepency here. This boanerges7 guy is a typical example of someone so blinded by their faith that they can't see the obvious truth as it slaps them across the face.
CBK81 3 years ago
Discern, in the intransitive verb sense is what I am referring to. How you come to understand it is from the roots by which the tree was produced, metaphorically speaking. It's a Hebrew book of metaphorical, allusionary, poetic, didactic, apocalyptic literature which needs to be comprehended in its intended context. Not in the literalist fashion you choose to utilize.
Boanerges7 4 years ago
You have totally missed the point. I was debunking a literal interpretation of Genesis, not espousing it. Your answer would apply to ANY ancient text, so you failed to answer why you think understanding the Bible differs from any other text.
tillnow67 4 years ago
Your opening statement clearly indicates your intention in this video. Whether you realize it or not, you are guilty of a literal and eisegetical understanding of scripture. The chronological markers you espouse do NOT create contradictions you claim in chapter 2, period. You can rest in your distortion of scripture if you like, but its obvious your errant description of it has been exposed. Your admittance of your mind being "boggled" is evident to any apologist watching this video.
Boanerges7 4 years ago
Explain how the chronological markers I mentioned are not really chronological markers then. Make your case. Just asserting over and over that there is no contradiction is not debunking. Try to string together a coherent argument relevant to the claims in the video. Your vocabulary isn't 5th grade level. Your argument shouldn't be either.
tillnow67 4 years ago
I never said the markers you espouse can't be used as chronological markers. That's not my argument. My argument,is that Genesis 1 details the creation account, and carries over to genesis 2:4; that's where your markers can accurately be utilized. Not beyond 2:4. The following verses emphasize the crown of God's creation, man. The author extrapolates on man and his environment and is not a comparative text. You state in the video "comparing the 2 chapters" which is an erroneous perspective.
Boanerges7 4 years ago
You have totally missed the point. The markers I am talking about come from chapter 2 after verse 4. They clearly give an order for creation which is different than the day by day chronology of chapter 1. If you want to refute that you must explain why I am wrong about the chronology in chapter 2. You haven't done that.
tillnow67 4 years ago
Again, Chapter 1 evidences an obvious chronology of events. Chapter 2 does not contain a chronology, but is instead an extrapolation of the crown God's creation, that is man and the environment He created him in. The insinuative, and pointless attempts at insulting me have no bearing on my argument. Your ignorance of me as a person makes your ad hominem attacks flaccid. They don't bother me, but they say more about you than you obviously realize. They reflect your insecurities about yourself.
Boanerges7 4 years ago
Plants came before man "there was not a man to till the ground" Adam came before animals "It is not good that man should be alone" then animals "but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him" then woman. It doesn't say "on day one god did this and on day 2 god did that", but there is a clear chronology in the text. That chronology contradicts the chronology of chapter one.
tillnow67 4 years ago
Wayne, slow down and examine what I have said. You can't seem to comprehend what I am saying. Maybe it's because you are to enthralled with attemping to insult my intelligence, which is something I find amusing. You made a video, be a man and debate the issues that it presents, and leave the name calling, and the pointless insults to the middle schoolers.
Boanerges7 4 years ago
chronology from chapter 2: plants before man (2:5) then man (2:7)and he was still alone (2:18) then the animals "I will make an help meet for him" (2:19) then after animals are made there was still "not found an help meet for him" (2:20) then the woman(2:22)
continued...
tillnow67 4 years ago
I made a video describing the chronology in chapter 2. You are welcome to present an argument explaining WHY it is not a chronology. But you keep simply repeating "there is no chronology in chapter 2" over and over. That is not debate. If you can't articulate why the markers I descibed don't constitute a chronology then you have NO argument. None. Period. Put up or shut up.
tillnow67 4 years ago
The problem here is that you assert something to be what it has been repeatedly stated, and proven it is not. You WANT it to be a chronology, so in your mind, and your mind alone thats what it is. I can't change that for you. If you insist on eisegetically pontifficating this fasle comparison, be my guest. I see even more clearly the proverbial assertion that warns against "casting pearls before swine, to be trampled underfoot" Have a good one dude!
Boanerges7 4 years ago
In other words, you've got nothing and you're bailing out of the conversation. Typical.
wonderbread21727 4 years ago
How profound.... LOL... Gimme a break, please! If you can't read what is posted, then join Wayne.... Be my guest...
Boanerges7 4 years ago
Was it in Bible college that they taught you that man/woman were created on the 7th day? Can you extrapolate on what you mean when you say "fundamentalist?" Are you referring to someone who reads scriptural text literally? Regarding your statement regarding some "special" understanding, if your insinuating I have some cosmic insight to the truths of scripture, ummmm no. I never said that, and its a false assertion, as well as a strawman argument.
Boanerges7 4 years ago
1)Already covered that in these comments. I intended to say 7th in the order of creation of the 7 things mentioned. I unintentionally mispoke and I already addressed that. 2)Look up christian fundamentalist. It's a pretty clear label. 3)Explain what you mean by "discern" then. Text is text and words are words. How do you think understanding the Bible is different from understanding any other text?
tillnow67 4 years ago
As an atheist, you more than likely adhere to a Darwinistic perception of life as we know it. You have several problems in your argument which should be addressed if you really expect to be taken seriously. First, understand that the Bible is not a science book. That's your 1st problem. Secondly, you have to study scripture, and learn how to discern it in order to make valid arguments. To exemplify your eisegetical comprehension, you assert man/woman were created on the 7th day...WRONG!
Boanerges7 4 years ago
Secondly, you claim multiple authors of Genesis by some random myopic assertion, and the "evidence" you provide is quite dubious. If you truly want to understand scripture, I would be glad to help,but I don't think you want to understand it,except to attempt to refute it. Please stick to science,and stay away from trying to discern scripture.
Boanerges7 4 years ago
Actually, biblical scholars have been aware of those seperate strands for centuries. Get a book on the subject and read it. For all your bravado, I notice you haven't even attempted to refute any points made in the video. Do you have any substantive input at all?
tillnow67 4 years ago
Here's some "substantive input" refuting your video's false assertions, considering you are ignoring the questions I posed to you. (1) Genesis 1 is an account of the 6 days of creation (Not 7) (2) Genesis 2 empahsizes in DETAIL the one aspect of creation that God had prized most highly, that is the creation of man. If you notice in the account in Genesis 1, after He created each day, it is stated that "and, it was good." After creating man, in His own image and likeness....(cont.)
Boanerges7 4 years ago
It is distinguished as being "VERY good" (3) That being said, it's obvious that Genesis 2 is an extrapolative commentary that doesn't present a reiterated account of creation, instead it presupposes the completion of God's work of God's creation set forth in Genesis 1. Failure to recognize the obvious complimentary nature of the subject-distinction between the 2 accounts reveals your obscurantist perspective of the text.
Boanerges7 4 years ago
More "substantive input" for you. Your Yahwist-Elohist assertion is nothing new to theist, or non theist. This thought process was introduced by Jean Astruc in 1753. Exodus 6:3 sheds light upon the so called discrepancy you are verbally regurgitating. What you fail to comprehend is that the key statement "to know the name of Yahweh" translated to Hebraic culture, or the phrase "to know" is regarding intimate, or experiential knowledge of God. That expression occurs 26 times in the OT.(cont.)
Boanerges7 4 years ago
And your willfull ignorance and denial of the facts is nothing new either. You are rehashing arguments that were weak hundreds of years ago and remain weak today. You are a sheep, plain and simple, deluded to the point that you will buy any explanation which allows you to cling to your delusion.
tillnow67 4 years ago
Ahhh..my favorite part of debunking atheistic perceptions, the ever popular ad hominem attack, and futile attempt to avoid the weakness of your argument. It's so old....When all else fails, create a smokescreen assertion where obviously the holes in your argument are spackled with vain attempts to insult, thus the atheist feels he has convinced someone other than himself of superior intellect. Whatever makes you feel like a man, my friend. LOL...
Boanerges7 4 years ago
First off, you haven't done any debunking, yet another word you evidently don't know the meaning of. You can call it an ad hominen attack if you like. I call it as I see it and you have provided sufficient evidence to make that call already. Christians want to be coddled and don't want to be thought of or spoken of as idiots while simultaneously hawking idiotic ideas as truth. Sorry, I won't coddle you.
tillnow67 4 years ago
Debunk: to expose the sham or falseness of; e.g. your argument. regardless of your denial of that fact. I don't expect you to admit to anything contrary to your myopically contrived babble. Regarding "coddling"; that statement further emphasizes your own fasle sense of intelligence in this matter, and personal lack of self esteem. Instead of dealing with MY argument, you resort to juvenile tactics. Denying the facts I have presented doesn't make them go away,nor does it make them inaccurate.
Boanerges7 4 years ago
You didn't debunk anything. You said chapter 2 has a different emphasis, but that in NO WAY removes the chronological markers from the text which clearly contradict the chronology in chapter 1. If you want to debunk what I said you HAVE to address that. Misdirection and unsupported assertions don not constitute debunking. Only a christian apologist would think it does.
tillnow67 4 years ago
Genesis chapter one utilizes the name Elohim consistently througout the chapter, and Yahweh becomes prominent in chapter 2. What you seem to overlook is the fact that in Genesis the eleven times that the name Yahweh is used, it is in conjuntion with the name Elohim, and not in a distinct fashion as you would like your listeners to believe, thus creating a fallacious contradiction. Your assertion to having extensive knowledge of the Bible is not evident in your discourse.
Boanerges7 4 years ago
You need to look up the words "complimentary" and "contradictory" because you obviously have them confused. You are ignoring the chronological markers in the text of chapter 2 and ignoring the obvious language differences resulting from different authorship.
tillnow67 4 years ago
A book doesn't have to be a science book to be taken literally as fundamentalists do, and that is who my videos are primarily aimed at because that is my background. I have studied the Bible extensively as was required at Bible college. If your point about discernment is to imply some "special" understanding imparted to believers then you can't be taken seriously.
tillnow67 4 years ago
Christians believe in a book that has talking animals, Wizards/Sorcerers, Witches, Demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, hundreds of dead people reanimating, and all sorts of magical, silly, absurd and primitive stories - and it's the ones who DON'T believe this that are insane or deluded.....Zeus help us.
DukeNukem4 4 years ago
Very good Vid. But I'm done with Christianity... it's obviously a joke, and the Christian God has low moral standards.
PowerAndPerception 4 years ago
good vid
moali68 4 years ago
zZzZzZ
u probably got kicked out because ur not smart enough to read it. plus it was in a different language so it sound contrdictorary* because there is no word to describe that thing so they had to repeat. ur ignorant.
jimmyjam9014 4 years ago
You don't spell very well...
Ignorant prick.
Dam0nR0ss 4 years ago
wow that burned me
blowjob
jimmyjam9014 4 years ago
It does matter that it is true, but explain to me how who wrote it means anything as long as God wrote it through them. And disprove me on the fact that it is two differnt accounts of two different crerations
tristinch07 4 years ago
it doesn't matter who wrote it and how many people wrote it the fact is it's the story of two different creations. it says elohim planted a garden in Eden, now begins the start of the second creation.
tristinch07 4 years ago
You're wrong. That's ALL that matters is who wrote it and whether it is true. It was obviously written by various human authors who got things wrong, not by a perfect god writing an inerrant book.
tillnow67 4 years ago
Helqihq, the truth is the serpent did lie, i don't kno what kind of Bible you have or if you actually read the text.Genesis 3:4 "then the serpent said to the woman, 'you will not surely die...." that is a lie. because of course we all die.
tristinch07 4 years ago
No, according to your religion, no one dies, they just go to another realm. So, in your religion the serpent really told the truth. I would say the serpent didnt lie and didnt tell the truth either way because its just a myth but of course the would make the entire damn story a lie wouldnt it?
gyro30 4 years ago
i'm not sayin satan did lie i said he could have, but God avoided that situation by creating everything in front of Adam. And i went to no great length and stretch to come up with the theory of two seperate creations, i simply read it. Try it!!
tristinch07 4 years ago
No, you read it simply. Try this. Read Genesis start to finish and take note of where it uses "God" and where it uses "the Lord God". They are different because one is a translation of Elohim and the other Yahweh. Most of the contradictions in Genesis are a result of two authors stories being blended together. Your parents didn't tell you that, did they? There's more they didn't tell you.
tillnow67 4 years ago
Chapter 2 of Genesis is an account of Eden, God wanted Adam to see that He created everything. Other wise Satan could come to Adam and say, "look at all i created". So He places Adam at a spot a creates Eden, and everything in Eden, around Adam. So it's not two different accounts or one creation but two different accounts of two different creations. hope this helps.... God Bless
tristinch07 4 years ago
Can somebody find me the place in Genesis where the snake actually lies? Seriously, look it up, he's telling the truth, God is the one who lied! Look it up, the Emperor has no clothes, GOD'S THE ONE WHO'S LYING! The implication is only that the snake had no right to tell the truth, but it's the truth! "Behold, man has become as one of us, to know good from evil" and so forth!
helgihg 4 years ago
Well, it helps demonstrate the lengths that otherwise rational people will go to to avoid admitting the obvious.
wonderbread21727 4 years ago
BattleshipTx, tell me what Adam ate while the tree grew then?
Digitalstorm007 4 years ago
interesting video. I looked up in the old testament and i saw that you were right. That did not surprise me because even though i am a christian i always thought that the old testament is nothing more than a book of hebrew legends (most of which are not even original). However just one correction: man was not created on day 7 as you say but at the end of day 6
makeavelyck 4 years ago
What I meant to say was man was created 7th in the order of the creation of the 7 things mentioned. If I said 7th day it was an unintentional slip.
tillnow67 4 years ago
Contradictions aside, a YEC must ask himself why would God make a very large (mostly lethal) universe, with the light from distant stars already millions of lightyears ahead of their source. An OEC must ask, why did God wait 13.7 billion years before creating Mankind on a 4.5 billion year old Earth?
kev3d 4 years ago
These vids are very informative, thank you for posting.
kev3d 4 years ago
Really? Read what you just posted again. "plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it" Again, at what stage do plants BEAR FRUIT and have seeds in them? Only fully grown plants do. Genesis 1 says they were bearing fruit and seeds. I'm not reading that in, it was plainly written in.
tillnow67 4 years ago
Or God could have created all the plants of the world...and where he created Adam he put the plants that would benefit adam most there and prior to that in that area there was no vegitation although vegitation existed.
nomyturn 4 years ago
Gen 1:11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
In don't see "full grown" anywhere nor any hint as to how the plants were produced.
BattleshipTx 4 years ago
What plant produces seeds while it is still a seed itself? Plants that bear seeds are mature plants. But you keep grasping for straws. Maybe you'll convince yourself.
tillnow67 4 years ago
Grasping at straws is what you are doing. Nothing at all in Genesis 1 says the plants were necessarily made full grown. Every plant that produces seeds was one a seed. Genesis 1 just doesn't say what you are reading into it.
BattleshipTx 4 years ago
think about what you are saying BattleshipTx...God creates plants...but there are no plants...just seeds. Within the week, God creates man...what did man eat? Genesis 2 has a tree, not a shrub, a seedling, or a twig...but a full tree bearing fruit. It's OBVIOUS the plants were supposed to be created full grown. Go to a church and without prefacing it with this argument...ask someone to read Gen 1 and tell you "Where the plants and animals created fully grown or as seeds and younglings?"
KingHeathen 4 years ago
When you read a book like Gone With The Wind, and Chapter 1 says Melody wore her blue dress to the party. Then Chapter 2 says she was wore her blue dress, favorite shoes and a pretty bonnet to the party. Do you immediately think that Chapter 1 and 2 are in conflict as Chapter 1 said she went shoeless and without head covering to the party? Obviously, 2 gives additional information so to understand 1.
BattleshipTx 4 years ago
Bad analogy. You can wear a blue dress with or without your favorite shoes and with or without a bonnet. But plants cannot bear fruit while they are still seeds, they MUST be grown. Why are you pretending to not see that?
tillnow67 4 years ago
They can bear fruit if they are planted as seeds grow up and bear fruit. You have to read Genesis 1 in connection with Genesis 2, just like you would any other book like Gone With The Wind. Chapter 2 tells you more about Chapter 1.
BattleshipTx 4 years ago
Look at Gen 1:12 It says the plants were bearing fruit and seeds ON DAY THREE. If you want to claim that the seeds were planted and grew into mature plants in one day, fine. But how do you then square that with Gen 2 which says the plants had NOT grown because there was no rain and no man to till the ground? Man wasn't created till day 6 according to Gen 1.
tillnow67 4 years ago
How do you know that it ment plants on the Planet Earth...there are many firmaments(planets) that could be God telling us that there is life on other planets
nomyturn 4 years ago
Are you retarded? I'm sorry I know name calling doesn't help,but somtimes... Anyway, No that's not a contradiction. If it said she wore her blue dress to the funeral that would be a blatent contradiction just like the Genisis account.
vetteluvnh 4 years ago
Oh by the way there are two types of plants in some plant cycles...a seedless and a seedbearing...he could have ment that the plants(seeds in the ground) were the seed bearing type
nomyturn 4 years ago
Point to where it says the plants were made "full grown". It simply doesn't say that in Genesis 1, you are reading it into that story. Read the language again, nothing at all about being created full grown:
BattleshipTx 4 years ago
I was wondering why the 2 different terms were used, thanks, makes sense.
How about evidence for jebus ? Some cat on stickam was saying that Paul or someone made accounts only 10 yrs after the death of JC vs 40yrs that I was made aware of
AtheistAtLARGE 4 years ago
Thanks for your time in making this video.
INSANEPOOKIE 4 years ago
very nice.
sharpie443 4 years ago